Koh said she will look into the matter during a December 6 hearing. As part of her inquiry, Koh said she will require Apple to disclose what information the company's lawyers knew about the jury foreman.

[...]

Samsung argued that jury foreman Velvin Hogan didn't disclose during jury selection that he had been sued by Seagate, his former employer. Samsung pointed out in court papers that Seagate and Samsung have a "substantial strategic relationship." The litigation with Seagate led Hogan to file for personal bankruptcy in 1993. Samsung maintains Hogan should have informed the court about the case.

macrumors 6502a

macrumors newbie

The contention that having some animus against Seagate means that one will also hate Samsung is total BS. Even if Samsung has some technology sharing or other agreements with Seagate. They are separate companies. Am I missing something other than Samsung's desperation.

macrumors 68030

give it up samsung, you copied apple, it's a fact, and everyone knows it but you.

Click to expand...

That would not be a wise business decision on Samsung's part and the fact you think they should give it up is a good enough reason why you should never be a CEO of a multi-billion dollar company. Whether Samsung copied or not, they are smart to fight this.

drwam said:

The contention that having some animus against Seagate means that one will also hate Samsung is total BS. Even if Samsung has some technology sharing or other agreements with Seagate. They are separate companies. Am I missing something other than Samsung's desperation.

Click to expand...

Seagate is partially owned by Samsung. Also, the foreman broke the rules by bringing in outside evidence that wasn't presented in the case to the jury. At the very least, someone with such ties to Samsung or Seagate shouldn't have been allowed on the jury pool at all.

macrumors newbie

That would not be a wise business decision on Samsung's part and the fact you think they should give it up is a good enough reason why you should never be a CEO of a multi-billion dollar company. Whether Samsung copied or not, they are smart to fight this.

Seagate is partially owned by Samsung. Also, the foreman broke the rules by bringing in outside evidence that wasn't presented in the case to the jury. At the very least, someone with such ties to Samsung or Seagate shouldn't have been allowed on the jury pool at all.

Click to expand...

Please site your evidence of the contention that the foreman brought in outside evidence. That is not presented in his interview or this article. And with regard to your employment advice to the previous poster's comment, it appears that you might want to avoid the legal field yourself.

macrumors G5

Please site your evidence of the contention that the foreman brought in outside evidence. That is not presented in his interview or this article. And with regard to your employment advice to the previous poster's comment, it appears that you might want to avoid the legal field yourself.

macrumors 601

"You're looking for material or something else coming in that wasn't introduced at trial, a juror reading reports about the case and they're being influenced by outside forces."

Click to expand...

Doesn't mean that they have any evidence. It's something that they are looking for, but they aren't accusing Hagen specifically. They are saying "this is the stuff we are looking for since this would defiantly prompt a mistrial.

macrumors newbie

Thank you. However, it appears the contention that the foreman presented "evidence" outside of that presented in the case is being misinterpreted. The foreman appears to have explained a conceptual thought, not present evidence. Evidence is fact based, concept is abstract based and subjective.

macrumors 68000

The contention that having some animus against Seagate means that one will also hate Samsung is total BS. Even if Samsung has some technology sharing or other agreements with Seagate. They are separate companies. Am I missing something other than Samsung's desperation.

Click to expand...

Not to mention the fact that he was asked about any litigation over the last 10 years and answered truthfully.

macrumors G5

Thank you. However, it appears the contention that the foreman presented "evidence" outside of that presented in the case is being misinterpreted. The foreman appears to have explained a conceptual thought, not present evidence. Evidence is fact based, concept is abstract based and subjective.

Click to expand...

I think it's being argued (I'm not 100% sure) that his experience with patents and him having this "epiphany" on prior art based on those patents is questionable. Not only is it being argued he was wrong with his assessment but that he then "taught" the jurors this incorrect analogy.

So I believe when they say he presented evidence - it's was his "model" for determining prior art which was irrelevant to the case, etc.

Someone can definitely correct me as I am simplifying it I am sure. And from memory

That would not be a wise business decision on Samsung's part and the fact you think they should give it up is a good enough reason why you should never be a CEO of a multi-billion dollar company. Whether Samsung copied or not, they are smart to fight this.

Seagate is partially owned by Samsung. Also, the foreman broke the rules by bringing in outside evidence that wasn't presented in the case to the jury. At the very least, someone with such ties to Samsung or Seagate shouldn't have been allowed on the jury pool at all.

Click to expand...

He didn't break the rules. You are one of those who don't understand how juries work.

Are you freakin' kidding me? How did this guy get through the jury selection?!

"Explaining a conceptual concept" that is material to the decision under deliberation is not the foreman's job.

This may very well end up as going to another trial. Gah.

Click to expand...

You are right it is not his job. As a member of the jury though he certainly can bring it up. Again another person who does not understand how jurys work. They are not NFL replay officials. They take the presented evidence and then discuss it with each other. There is nothing about the jury process that keeps jurors from including their own insights and experiences into the discussion. In fact that is an important part of it.

It is also why high sides and the judge can remove people during selection. If juries worked like some of you mistakenly think they would call the first twelve people and that would be that.

Unless the foreman lied during jury questioning nothing will come of this. It was partly up to the judge and mostly Samsung to ask the right questions.

Bad lawyers are bad at selecting juries. We have never seen anything to indicate Samsung has competent attornies.

Thank you. However, it appears the contention that the foreman presented "evidence" outside of that presented in the case is being misinterpreted. The foreman appears to have explained a conceptual thought, not present evidence. Evidence is fact based, concept is abstract based and subjective.

Click to expand...

It is gobsmacking that people think juries are not allowed to make arguments based on such things. This particular case has demonstrated to me that a significant percentage of people are clueless how our jury system works or what jury deliberation is.

Since this guy went on National television I said this will bite Apple in the ass... just watch..

Click to expand...

Yeah not going on tv is not a requirement of being a juror. Again unless he actually lied there is nothing here. The judge is covering their bases for appeal so they are not overturned. People think that there are some strict rules for jury deliberation are simply wrong.

macrumors 6502a

It's what I thought too. It will make Apple look really bad. And it's not about $1.1b case against Samsung, that won't stand in a patent court anyway and is most likely to be revoked in the next sequel - which will come, and which will be by an export court and not be a jury trial.

One point that people seems to miss often, Apple litigates a lot, but they are really unsuccessful with it from their track record.

macrumors member

I won't give my opinion on the merits of the case. I will say that there was quite a bit that I find questionable about the foreman and how the jury deliberated.

And if this were a criminal court case and you were the defendant - I don't believe anyone here would want a jury member who had any remote/tangential bias.

A fair trial is a fair trial. And if Samsung (or Apple!) didn't get one - they are entitled to one.

Click to expand...

I agree...I read somewhere that the juror had had previous headaches with patenting and the patent office. The other jurors took his words as expertise and so he may have influenced the jury one way or another based on information outside the courtroom. That would not be right.

Whether there is foul play or not, it's worth looking into...which is what the judge is doing. So, good.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.